Advocates:
['M/S P GUNARAJ', '', 'G KIRUTHIKA', 'C SATHISH', 'M/S S CHAKKARAVARTHI', '', 'ADDL TYPED SET FILED', 'IN SR STAGE', 'K SANDHYA COUNSEL', 'R SUMITHRA']

Crl.R.C.No.1456 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.11.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

Criminal Revision Case No.1456 of 2022

K.John Richard

... Petitioner

Versus

J.Grace Jennifer Rohini

... Respondent

Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal

Procedure Code to set aside the order dated 28.02.2022 made in M.P.No.346

of 2021 in M.C.No.209 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional Family Court,

Chennai.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.P.Gunaraj

For Respondent

:

Mr.S.Chakkaravarthi

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging the order

dated 28.02.2022 made in M.P.No.346 of 2021 in M.C.No.209 of 2022 on

the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai.

2.The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The

Page 1 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1456 of 2022

respondent/wife filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.209 of 2020 before the

Family Court, Chennai, seeking maintenance for a sum of Rs.40,000/- per

month. Pending maintenance case, the respondent filed a petition under

Section 125(2) Cr.P.C in M.P.No.346 of 2021 before the II Additional Family

Court, Chennai, seeking interim maintenance. The Family Court ordered a

sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, as interim maintenance to the respondent/wife

till the disposal of the maintenance case. Challenging the said order, the

petitioner has filed the present revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

in bed-ridden and he is unable to maintain himself, whereas, the

respondent/wife is working and getting decent salary. However, the Family

Court failed to consider the same and ordered interim maintenance, which

warrants interference of this Court.

4. It seems that the maintenance case is pending from the year 2020.

Since the scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C is summary in nature and its object

itself has to be decided within a short span of time, unfortunately, the Family

Court and the learned counsel on either side are protracting the case only to

Page 2 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1456 of 2022

deviate the procedures as contemplated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Time and

again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court issued directions that the

maintenance case should be disposed of on merits within a prescribed time

limit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and

another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 it is clearly stated that both the parties

have to disclose their Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities as stated in the

Enclosure I to III as stated in the Rajnesh case (supra) and also stated that

application for interim maintenance has to be disposed of within 60 days by

the Court as specified in Section 125 Cr.PC.

5.On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the Family Court or the

learned counsel on either side, are not following either the procedures

contemplated under Section 125 Cr.P.C or even the third proviso of Section

125(i) Cr.P.C in the case of interim maintenance and keeping the maintenance

case years together, which would clearly defeat the object of Section 125

Cr.P.C., especially, when it contemplates as summary procedures. Whereas,

most of the Judicial Officers or Bar members are not following the said

procedures. Now-a-days, Advocates are appearing before the Family Court

and are not taking the case seriously while dealing with matrimonial matters

Page 3 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1456 of 2022

and maintenance cases and also as not following the directions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. Most of the maintenance cases, at the time of filing the case

the children are almost minors at the tender age, but pending disposal of the

matter they attain majority.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances and also considering the

scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C, this Court feels that t